Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Senator Grassley on the State of the Senate

Senator Grassley is class act that has the respect of the
Republicans and Democrats of the Senate.
Well accept one. Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid who broke hundreds of years of Senate tradition in executing
the Nuclear Option and ending many minority rights in the Senate has gone to
the Senate floor to call Senator Grassley a liar. Of course, Senator Grassley is no such thing
and Senator Reid is having yet another fit.
Senator Reid is angry that Senators won’t treat him with the respect he
feels he deserves as the new Senate dictator.

Unlike Senator Reid, Senator Grassley remains a courteous
class act in his response. More
importantly Senator Grassley uses something that Senator Reid does not use,
FACTS. While the rebuttal is long, it is
an important primer on what is really going on in the Senate that Harry Reid is
trying to destroy with his hypocritical and dictator-like ways. We have bolded a few key parts.

Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley

Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee

Nominations and the State of the Senate

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Mr. President,

Several weeks ago, on February 12th, as Washington D.C.
braced for a snowstorm and the Senate rushed to finish its business before the
President’s Day recess, the senior Senator from Arkansas came to the floor to
offer a Unanimous Consent request to confirm a district court judge from his
state.

Before he made the request, I spoke with that Senator – who to his credit, was
one of only three Democrats to vote against the so-called Nuclear Option last
November.

Although I was sympathetic to his desire to see his home state judge confirmed,
I objected to his request to bypass the procedure the Majority adopted in
November, including recorded cloture and confirmation votes.

I did so based on principle. I did so because, after 52 Democrats voted to
strip the Minority of its rights, the very least we could do is ask the
Majority to utilize the procedure they voted to adopt.

After all – the simple fact of the matter is that the Minority can no longer
stop nominees. That was the whole point
of what they did in November.

So the Senator from Arkansas offered his Unanimous Consent request, and I
withheld my consent. We had our exchange
on the floor.

But we did so courteously. As senators should.

Later that evening, the Majority Leader came to the floor and made another
Unanimous Consent request. Senator
Cornyn objected, for the same reasons as I had.
Thereafter, the Majority Leader exercised the power that he alone
possesses to move these judges, and filed cloture on four district court
nominees.

That set up several votes for last Monday evening.

That evening, during our side’s hour of debate time – and that’s all we have
anymore on district court judges, one hour of debate time for each side – I
spoke on the current state of the Senate with respect to the legislative
process.

I spoke about how the Founding Fathers
intended the Senate to operate. I spoke
about how the Senate used to operate. How it should operate. And sadly, how it does operate.

I spoke about how the Majority Leader
routinely files cloture on bills before debate has even begun. I spoke about how in today’s Senate – in what
is supposed to be the world’s greatest deliberative body – United States
senators from great states all over this nation are shut out of the process.

As our side’s hour of debate time neared its end, the distinguished Chairman of
our committee asked if I would yield him a few minutes of our time.

I of course agreed to extend him the courtesy.

I extended him the courtesy even though I knew he’d use that time to argue
against everything I’d just said.

I extended him the courtesy because I know he’d do the same for me. And, as a matter of fact, he has done the
same for me.

That’s the United States Senate. We’re
courteous to each other. Even when we
disagree.

As I said, that was Monday night.

On Tuesday morning, we had a series of stacked votes related to those district
court nominees. We had several cloture
votes, as well as confirmation votes. I voted against cloture – along with many
of my colleagues. I don’t presume to
speak for my colleagues, but I voted against cloture to register my objection
to a process arrived at via brute force.

We also had roll call votes on each nominee.

But the Majority Leader wasn’t content
to simply use the procedures he led his caucus to adopt last November.

He wanted voice votes rather than recorded roll call votes on those lifetime
appointments.

I objected. And I exercised the right of
a United States Senator to ask for a roll call vote of yeas and nays. I supported each of the nominees on final
confirmation. Some of my colleagues
opposed them. But even if the votes had
been unanimous, the right to demand a recorded voted is one the most basic and
fundamental rights of a United States Senator.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with
exercising that right -- especially on a
lifetime appointment.

Before we had that recorded vote, I took
the opportunity to remind my colleagues of how well this President is doing
with respect to getting his judges that he nominates confirmed by the United
States Senate. Specifically, I informed
everyone that thus far this Congress, we’ve confirmed 50 of President Obama’s
judicial nominees. By way of comparison,
at this point in President Bush’s second term, we had confirmed only 21
judicial nominees.

Those numbers compare district and circuit nominations. That’s the benchmark both sides typically
use.

Those are basic, unassailable facts.

In response, the Majority Leader
described our request for recorded votes as “a waste of taxpayer time.”

And then he concluded his brief remarks by saying this: “I would suggest to my
friend the senior Senator from Iowa that he not believe his own words because
they are simply not true.”

That was on Tuesday.

Two days later on Thursday evening the Majority Leader came to the floor and
proffered a Unanimous Consent request for several district court judges. Senator Moran was on the floor at the time
and objected for our side.

Thereafter, the Majority Leader filed cloture on 4 district court judges and
the nominee to lead the Justice Department’s Civil Rights division.

A few minutes later, the Majority Leader returned to the floor so he could, as
he described it, “say a few words about the man who does all the objecting
around here – or a lot of the objecting.”

He then proceeded to quote extensively from a speech I delivered in 2005.

He then accused me of violating senatorial courtesy during floor consideration
of the immigration bill because I objected to consideration of amendments
approved by Democrats, without assurances that we would vote on amendments that
members on my side wanted to offer.

Even if some of the amendments the
Democrats wanted had bipartisan support, I was the Senator standing up and
defending the right of our members to offer amendments. Even controversial amendments.

To be clear. I was prepared to vote on
any Democrat amendment, provided that Republican amendments were not
restricted.

The Majority Leader then concluded his highly discourteous remarks by saying
this: “the Senior Senator from Iowa, he’s talking out of both sides of his
mouth and the people of Iowa should check this out. [They should] see what he says and what he
does.”

Given how inappropriate these remarks
were, and that they roughly coincided with several other inappropriate comments
the Majority Leader made last week, I feel compelled to respond.

Let me start by reviewing briefly how we arrived where we are today. As I said, the Majority Leader quoted from a
speech I delivered in 2005.

For the benefit of my colleagues who weren’t here at the time, that was back
when the Democrats were indiscriminately filibustering a host of President
Bush’s highly qualified nominees for the circuit courts.

And make no mistake, the Democrats were
utilizing the filibuster on judges to an extent never witnessed before in our
nation’s history.

During this time period, they were filibustering 10 different circuit court
nominees.

So like I said, the Majority Leader quoted from a speech I delivered during
that debate, on May 23, 2005.

What he failed to mention is that 6 days
earlier, on May 17, 2005, he said this on the Senate floor regarding the
nuclear option:

“It appears that the Majority Leader [referring to Senator Frist] cannot accept
any solution which does not guarantee all current and future judicial nominees
an up-down vote. That result is
unacceptable to me because it is inconsistent with the Constitutional checks
and balances. It would essentially
eliminate the role of the Senate minority in confirming judicial nominations
and turn the Senate into a rubberstamp for the President’s choices.”

I’m not going to re-litigate that fight today, except to say this. At the time, Republicans, myself among them,
were arguing those nominees should be afforded up and down votes.

But as the quotation I just read demonstrates, the Democrats refused.

At the end of the day, our side lost that debate.

We didn’t believe judicial nominees
should be subjected to a 60 vote threshold.
But nor did we believe that we should play by two sets of rules.

So when the roles were reversed and there was a Democrat in the White House,
Republicans utilized the tool as well.
The only difference was that we used it much, much more sparingly.

But the Democrats, of course, didn’t like being treated to the tactic that they
pioneered. So, they began to threaten to
utilize the so-called Nuclear Option.

A lot of negotiations ensued between our side, and the Majority Leader. And again, I’m not going to review every
detail. But as any member of this body
can tell you, the result of those negotiations was this: We relinquished certain rights regarding nominations.

For instance, District Court nominations used to be subject to 30 hours of
debate time. They are now subject to
only 2 hours.

In exchange for relinquishing those rights, the Majority Leader of the United
States Senate gave his word that he would oppose ANY EFFORT to use the Nuclear
Option.

On January 27, 2011, the Majority Leader
said this on the Senate floor: “I will oppose any effort in this Congress or
the next to change the Senate’s rules other than through the regular order.”

Notwithstanding that promise, at the beginning of the next Congress, we were
once again on the receiving end of threats regarding the Nuclear Option. And once again, on January 24, 2013, after a
lot of negotiations, the Majority Leader again gave his commitment.

Here is what the Majority Leader said on the floor of this chamber:

“Any other resolutions related to Senate
procedure would be subject to a regular order process, including consideration
by the Rules Committee.”

That commitment mattered. It mattered to me. It mattered to my colleagues. We relinquished certain rights. In exchange for extinguishing those rights,
we received a commitment from the Majority Leader of the United States Senate.

And remember, colleagues. This is the
United States Senate. Not only are we
courteous to one another. We keep our
word.

10 months after making that commitment,
on November 21, 2013, the Majority Leader and 51 other Democrats voted to
invoke the Nuclear Option. They chose to adopt a new set of procedures for
confirming judges.

So that is how we got where we are today.

And yet, three months later, when the
Minority has the audacity to insist that the Majority utilize the procedures
they voted to adopt, the Majority Leader comes to the floor to level an
ad-hominem attack.

Amazingly, given the commitments he made
at the beginning of the last two congresses, he accused me of speaking out of
both sides of my mouth.

The fact of the matter is there is absolutely nothing wrong with demanding
debate time and roll call votes – especially on lifetime appointments to the
Judiciary. And especially after the
Majority chose to adopt these very procedures just last November.

That’s not “a waste of taxpayer time,” as the Majority Leader called it. It’s representative government.

And while I’m on the subject of the floor procedure, let me say this about the
legislative process we’ve been following on the floor.

I spoke at length on this subject last Monday – just as I have on several other
occasions. I’ve been highly critical of
the process we follow these days on the floor.

But I’ve always tried to avoid making my criticisms personal. I’ve always tried
to be courteous.

But there is no getting around this
fact: it’s nothing short of a travesty
that great senators from all over this nation must go to the Majority Leader to
ask permission to offer amendments.

Proud senators from proud states.

Republican senators and Democrat senators.

Conservative senators. Liberal senators.

Northerners and Southerners.

Appropriators and Authorizers.

Hawks and Doves.

All of these senators have been reduced to this: They are forced to come before one
individual, on bended knee, to ask permission – PERMISSION – to offer
amendments.

That is NOT as it should be in the world’s greatest deliberative body.

So am I highly critical of the
legislative process we undergo on the floor?
Absolutely I am.

But I didn’t criticize the Majority Leader in a personal or discourteous
way. I didn’t accuse him of “talking out
of both sides of his mouth,” as he did me.

I wasn’t attacking him personally: I was defending the rights of 99 other
senators.

And what, exactly, is the Majority afraid of, anyway? Taking a few hard votes?

We’re paid to take hard votes. We’re
sent here to exercise our best judgment on behalf of our constituents.

That’s how our Republic is designed.

It does not have to be this way.

Consider how amendments are handled in the Judiciary Committee, for example.

Our Chairman DOES NOT tell us what amendments we’re allowed to offer. Nor does he tell us how many amendments we’re
allowed to offer.

He controls the agenda. But WE get to
offer amendments.

As a result, every single member of our committee – whether they like it or not
-- contributes to the process.

The Chairman controls the agenda. The
Minority offers amendments. And the
Majority has to vote on those amendments.
That’s the process.

That’s what happens when you have a Chairman who respects the rights of United
States senators.

There is absolutely no reason we couldn’t take the same approach on the floor.

Now, let me mention one other thing about what the Majority Leader said the
other night, because I found it particularly offensive.

Immediately after accusing me of “talking out of both sides of my mouth,” the
Majority Leader suggested that the people of Iowa should pay attention to what
I say and what I do.

Let me tell you something.

The people of Iowa know who they’ve elected to the Senate. They know that ever since I was first
sworn-in to this body in January of 1981, I have fought all day, every day, to
represent them.

I know my constituents, and they know me.

I go to constituent meetings in every one of our 99 counties every year.

I talk to my constituents. I read their
mail.

And I know, for instance, how hard Obamacare has been on families in my state.

So I find it personally offensive for
the Majority Leader to come to the floor –as he did last Wednesday - and accuse
Americans – including my constituents – of telling lies when they share their
stories about how Obamacare is impacting them.

So, last Thursday evening the Majority Leader came to the floor so he could, as
he described it, “say a few words about the man who does all the objecting
around here.”

Well, Mr. President. Do I object? You bet I do.

So do the rest of my committee members.
And so does the rest of our caucus.

We object to the authoritarian way this
Senate is being run.

We object to being shut out of the legislative process.

We object to dismissing constituent stories about Obamacare as lies.

We object to taking to the floor of the United States Senate to attack fellow
citizens as “un-American” because they have the audacity to exercise their
First Amendment rights.

And yes, we object to discourteous ad hominem attacks on Senate colleagues
because they choose to exercise their right to demand roll call votes on
lifetime appointments.

It should stop. The Senate should return
to being the greatest deliberative body in the world.